SomeSailor
You are looking at this as an in-house design and systems engineer. In this instant (bad?) information age a very deep breath and coming out is required by Boeing.
Tom-- I respectfully submit that in this case, you haven't a clue what you'r'e talking about. Making assumptions as an outsider about what's going on in an incredibly complex industry that you are not part of is natural, but totally irrelevant.
The network of suppliers and subcontractors and the incredibly complex relationship between us, our suppliers, and our customers is so far beyond people outside the companies and the industry itself to comprehend it's laughable.
Of course the battery thing is important. But it has been blown far, far out of proportion by the media, speculation by people like yourself, and basic ignorance.
Compared to things that have occurred on airplane programs since the Wright Brothers, the 787's battery issue is actually pretty minor in terms of the problem itself and fixing it. The A380 had exploding engines and cracking wings. The early 747s could barely get out of their own way their engines were so underpowered and unreliable. The 707 had potentially catastrophic flutter problems that were not discovered until the plane had gone into service.
The only difference between the 787 battery problem and earlier, much more severe and costly problems is the media hype.
We and Airbus have a customer base of about 130 airlines. It's probably a few more than that today with the recent low-cost startups, but nevertheless it is a very, very small customer base. And they are not stupid customers. We aren't selling iPads and refrigerators to an ignorant and gullible mass market here.
Our customers are very much aware of the realities of airplanes, the kind of things that can go wrong with them, and what it takes to fix them, because once they own them they have to do this themselves for the life of the airplane. We help them, of course, but they are not helpless soccer moms complaining about the "funny noises" in their minivans.
In the case of a new airplane program, our customers are involved all the way through concept, design, development, manufacturing, and testing phases. Some more than others, but the point is that this isn't a product that we developed in the back room, produced, put on the shelf, launched a big ad campaign, and said "here you are, come buy it." It would not surprise me to learn that at the point where the battery power for the 787 was being decided upon that there were some customer representatives involved in that decision. It was our customers, for example, who determined that the 777 would have control yokes instead of the sidestick controllers that were originally being planned for the plane.
I'm not trying to imply that our customers bear any of the responsibility for the current battery issue, only that our planes and the decisions about their design are not made in a vacuum with respect to our customers.
Of course our customers are not happy with having one of their tools taken out of action for awhile. But they have become very, very good at dealing with things like this by substituting planes, adjusting schedules, and so forth. The notion that the grounding of 60 planes is throwing the airline industry into chaos is just silly, at least it is to anyone who knows the realities of the industry.
The 787 battery issue is an important problem to get solved and a lot more people than you can even conceive of are working on it 24/7/365. Just as they worked on all the problems--- many of them far more serious than this--- that have cropped up with every other plane that has come before. This applies as much to Airbus as it does to us.
The frustrating thing about these problems is not the problem itself--- the industry will figure it out and fix it just as the industry has been finding and fixing problems from day one. The frustrating thing is having to listen to the incredible ignorance expressed by everyone outside the industry. I'm not going to claim that air transportation is the most misunderstood industry on the planet but if it's not it's running a close second. It's an easy target for speculation and incorrect assumptions like some of those that have been made here simply because most people--- including the media--- don't have a clue how the industry works or even how an airplane works.
I have no idea if our executive levels will give any sort of "explanation" to the public other then the "we have confidence" sort of statements which has already been made. But I will be quite surprised if they do. They never have-- to my knowledge--- in the past because doing this doesn't help solve the actual problem and there are no "See Spot Run" explanations that a largely ignorant audience would even begin to comprehend. So I suspect the course of events will be the same as it always has been--- the problem will get solved, the industry will move on to solving the next one, and that will be that.
The only thing that is important is to correct the problem so our customers can get back to using the planes. The fact that you even speculate that we are looking for a "quick fix" shows how little you-- and pretty much everyone else--- knows about this industry. That's not meant to be an insult, just an illustration. If I were to be speculating about the insurance industry or the shipping industry or Rick B's yachting industry--- things I know nothing about other than what I read or hear about in the media--- whatever I said would most likely be just as ignorant and wrong.
